ase and Comment POCKET EDITION Vol. 27 August-September-October 1921 No. 4 Office Established 1894. Published by The Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company. President, W. B. Hale; Vice-President, J. B. Bryan; Treasurer, B. A. Rich; Secretary, G. M. Wood. and plant: Aqueduct Building, Rochester, New York. Editor, Asa W. Russell. The Chief Justiceship OR twenty-seven years Edward D. White was a member of the Supreme Court of the United States, and for ten years last past its Chief Justice. He was a man of vigorous mind and wide culture, a jurist trained in both the civil and common law, and well fitted by experience and ability to participate in the decision of the momentous and varied questions that came before the tribunal over which he presided. Their scope included the farthest isles of our dominion and embraced the legal aspects of the historic events of our time. Among the questions considered were the status of our foreign possessions in the Insular Cases, and those presented under the Interstate Commerce Act, the Anti-trust Act, the Federal measures against intoxicating liquors, or growing out of the war, or involving war-time administration of public utilities. His relations with the bar were marked by unfailing patience and courtesy. A leading trait of his character was his broad and unswerving patriotism. The voice of the late Chief Justice is stilled; but he has left behind him words of encouragement and of confidence in the profession of his choice. In an eloquent address before the American Bar Association in 1919 he sent forth this ringing message to the lawyers of the future: "The American lawyer, from the public point of view, is especially dedicated to the preservation of human liberty, and upon him and the faithful discharge of his duties rests the hope of all the recognize this great truth, and let us ages for its perpetuation. Ah! let us resolve the more and more, as we go about the daily affairs of our lives, to carry it in our minds and hearts in order more fully to meet the great responsi bilities which rest upon us. Let its consciousness admonish us to put aside the fallacious suggestion that the Constitution has outlived its usefulness; that the country has outgrown the restraints which the Constitution creates; that, as individual right is inimical to progress and liberty and a free government, such right should be destroyed, to be replaced by some strange combination of the many to the obliteration of all individual freedom." His closing words rose to prophetic heights in their fervor: "Lo! as I strain my vision to the dawn of the generations which are to come, my heart rises with exaltation and gratitude because it is given to me to see an advancing force full of love for individual liberty and free government, and fixed in the purpose to perpetuate them. Ah! as I look at its noble array, confidence in the future becomes assured, and I cannot but exclaim: 'All hail, the American lawyer of the generations which are to follow! Come! come! in your allotted time, so that individual liberty may endure, representative government be perpetuated, and the only safe and peaceful highway for the advance of democracy in its true sense be made certain.'" A succession of eminent and learned men have held the chief justiceship. First came John Jay, the negotiator of the Treaty with England in 1794, about which the fires of heated controversy raged as violently as about the Treaty of Versailles. Daniel Webster paid him a tribute as splendid as it is eloquent, by saying: "When the spotless ermine of the judicial robe fell on John Jay, it touched nothing less spotless than itself." Next came John Rutledge, who presided at one term of the court, but whose nomination was not confirmed by the Senate, apparently because of his opposition to the Jay treaty. He was succeeded by Oliver Ellsworth, who had enjoyed extraordinary success at the bar and had amassed a fortune. After four years' service, failing health compelled him to resign the office. Then came John Marshall, the most majestic figure in the line, who served for thirty-four years during the formative period of the government, and by his genius established the Constitution on a firm and logical basis. His successor, Roger B. Taney, presided for twenty-eight years, and was distinguished as a strict constructionist, an upholder of state sovereignty, and a master of incisive analysis. Next followed the talented and resourceful Salmon P. Chase, who had been Secretary of the Treasury in President Lincoln's cabinet, and who brought to the bench the ripened fullness of his great pow ers. He was succeeded by Morrison R. Waite, a man of judicial temperament, well-balanced mind, and conservative tendencies. Later came Melville W. Fuller, who had been eminent at the bar of the Northwest, and who was noted for his independence of thought and courage of action. These men, together with their associates, constitute a judicial line that will rank with the noblest and best in the annals of jurispru- all these positions he has acquitted dence. The new Chief Justice has had a unique training. None of his predecessors brought to this high office such a wealth of experience. He has been a law reporter, a practising lawyer, a prosecuting attorney, judge of a local court, solicitor general of the United States, and judge of the circuit court of appeals for eight years. He has been prominent in the work of legal education and has been president of the American Bar Associ ation. He has served as Secretary of War and was provisional governor of Cuba. Finally he attained the crowning dignity of President of the United States. In himself with commendable integrity and ability. When the chief justiceship became vacant, it was evident that no other choice could be fittingly made. Under the guidance of Chief Justice Taft, the Supreme Court of the United States will remaintrue to its cherished traditions, and continue, in the words of Rufus Choate, to be "appropriated to justice, to security, to reason, to restraint; where there is no respect of person; where will nothing, and power is nothing, and numbers are nothing, and all are equal and all secure before the law." is Disarmament "We have passed together through the fiery furnace of the war for the protection of liberty against a deadly menace. But can we not combine with equal enthusiasm and devotion to establish peace firmly throughout the world? "Your President, to his lasting honor, has summoned a conference on disarmament. The world is groaning under the terrible weight of debt and taxes. The ancient fallacy that the best way to secure peace is to prepare for war is a proved delusion. "An enlightened public opinion ought now be directed to the folly, the risk and the burden of bloated and extravagant expenditures upon the machinery of war. If there be any community or nation which desires to make good its claim to be the moral leader of the world that title would indeed be justly earned by the nation among us which shows the way by an actual and substantial reduction of excessive expenditures on preparations for war. Other nations would follow and children yet unborn would rise to call those 'blessed' who pointed out the true path of peace." From Remarks of Sir John Simon at Dinner of American Bar Association, September 2, 1921. Silent Policeman HAT symbol of It was further decided that the the majesty of the law, known as the "silent policeman," which is now commonly placed in crowded thoroughfares as a guidance to traffic, has had its day in court, and its legal status has been defined. One of these monitors became displaced, and, instead of standing uprightly at the post of duty, lay prone in the traveled roadway. Notice of the downfall of this auxiliary of the traffic squad was communicated to the nearest police station; but, nevertheless, the device lay where it fell for an hour, and until plaintiff, while driving his motorcar, collided with it to the injury of his vehicle. The court held in the resultant action, Aaronson v. New Haven, 94 Conn. 690, 110 Atl. 872, 12 A.L.R. 328, that the presence of a sufficiently conspicuous silent policeman in the proper place at the intersection of two city streets is not a defect in the highway within the meaning of a statute giving a right of action for injury caused by such defects, although it is not securely anchored so as to prevent its being displaced. mere placing by a city of a socalled silent policeman at the intersection of two streets without fastening or anchoring it, and with knowledge that it is liable to be displaced so as to become a dangerous obstruction to traffic, is not negligence which will render the city liable for injury through a vehicle colliding with it after it has been displaced. The general verdict for the plaintiff, however, was sustained on the ground of the defendant's negligence in failing to remove the obstruction from the highway. It was held that delay for thirty minutes to remove a dangerous obstruction to travel in a public street after the police had notice of it, when it could have been removed in half that time, may be found to be negligence which will render the city liable for injury to a vehicle coming in contact with it. It thus appears that the act of the city in stationing a silent policeman on the street does not constitute a defect in the highway, nor is it actionable negligence, but that liability may arise after notice of the fact that the device has fallen and is obstructing traffic. Is a Rug a Trap? F A HOST invite to This unusual question arose in the Wisconsin case of Greenfield v. Miller, 180 N. W. 834, annotated in 12 A.L.R. 982, which holds that an invited guest or friendly visitor stands on no better footing than a bare licensee, and must take the premises as he finds them, subject to the limitation that the licensor must not set a trap or be guilty of active negligence which contributes to the injury. 1 The leading case upon the subject is Southcote v. Stanley, Hurlst. & N. 247, 156 Eng. Reprint, 1195, 25 L. J. Exch. N. S. 339, 38 Eng. L. & Eq. Rep. 295, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 60, where a recovery was denied to one invited to visit a hotel by the proprietor, and who was injured by a large piece of glass which fell from an insecure door when he opened it. One of the judges considered that while the plaintiff remained at the house as a visitor he was in the same position as any other member of the establishment, so far as regards the negligence of the master or his servants, and he must take his chance with the rest. Another of the judges seemed to place this decision upon the ground of the absence of a trap, or of active negligence, saying: "Where a person is in the house of another, either on business or for any other purpose, he has a right to expect that the owner of the house will take reasonable care to protect him from injury; for instance, that he will not allow a trapdoor to be open, through which the visitor may fall. But in this case my difficulty is to see that the declaration charges any act of commission. If a person asked another to walk in his garden, in which he had placed spring guns or mantraps, and the latter, not being aware of it, was thereby injured, that would be an act of commission. But if a person asked a visitor to sleep at his house, and the former omitted to see that the sheets were properly aired, whereby the visitor caught cold, he could maintain no action, for there was no act of commission, but simply an act of omission." It is thus evident that a rug lying on a polished floor is in no proper sense a mantrap. |